I don't know that I agree with that. What if the added attachments are
present but the image of the organisation's logo in the signature doesn't
come through for some reason? That's of course incomplete - but does that in
and of itself render it inauthentic and therefore not a record? I submit it
does not. It may be considered slightly *less* authentic, but it still
represents the best copy of the record.
Or what about organisations that either haven't standardized or do not
effectively enforce such standardization with regards to use of logos? In
other words, my email to you has it, someone elses's email to you had it but
it didn't come through, and someone else's yet didn't have it at all.

Here are some even more problematic examples. What about some translation
routine that translates my PNG logos to GIFs? What about the one where I use
some type of animation in my signature that your security software strips
out? What about when your email system converts my rich-text email to ASCII?
Etc. In all of these cases the email you receive is demonstrably different
from the one I sent. Which one demonstrates more integrity and is therefore
more authentic?

My point here is that electronic information objects can be so complex that
I think we think of them in such binary terms to our peril. There are
degrees of integrity, and to assume that only 100% integrity can =
authenticity is I think untenable today and will only become more so as
files become still more complex.

Respectfully submitted,

jesse
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]